The Spanish National Audience has sentenced six sons of the late businessman José María Ruiz-Mateos to 7 years and 4 months in prison for fraud, money laundering, and embezzlement.

This sentence relates to illegal activities carried out to attract funds for the Grupo Nueva Rumasa between 2009 and 2011. In a detailed ruling spanning 672 pages, the court also sentenced José Ramón Romero, the director of the Grupo Rumasa office in Jerez de la Frontera, to 6 years and 3 months in prison.

Zoilo Pazos, a nephew of Ruiz-Mateos and involved with multiple companies within the Grupo, received 6 years and 5 months.

Ángel de Cabo, Fernando Juan Lavernia, and Iván Losada were sentenced to shorter terms, ranging from 3 to 5 months for embezzlement.

Four additional individuals who stood trial alongside the prominent Ruiz-Mateos family were acquitted.

The court, presided over by Judge Teresa García Quesada, ruled that the Ruiz-Mateos brothers must jointly compensate those harmed by their actions and pay for the legal costs incurred, including those of the plaintiffs.

The court's decision highlights the opaque structure of the Grupo Nueva Rumasa, which consisted of a vast number of companies operating under a common management but lacking a formal consolidated group as recognized in commercial and fiscal law.

Despite the family's ownership, many companies were formally held by foreign entities, often located in tax havens, which obscured the financial dealings.

As of early 2009, the Grupo Nueva Rumasa was in serious economic distress, accumulating debts amounting to millions of euros and requiring immediate liquidity.

The businesses within the Grupo faced upcoming liabilities of €197.5 million due in 2009, followed by an additional €194.6 million in 2010. Faced with this precarious financial situation and an inability to secure additional bank financing, the family concealed their insolvency from creditors and launched a public fundraising initiative.

This effort involved marketing investment opportunities in their well-known companies through national media campaigns, misleading investors about the Grupo’s financial health.

The scheme sought to raise funds by offering high-interest returns on investments supported by corporate promissory notes.

Investors were drawn in by the family name and reputation built upon recognizable brands.

During the investigation, it was reported that at least 4,110 individuals bought promissory notes from the Grupo Nova Rumasa, leading to total funds raised amounting to €337,377,450.60. Investigation findings indicated that approximately €243,476,514 entered the Grupo's accounts from February 2009 to February 2011. The capital raised was primarily redistributed among various companies, serving as the Grupo's sole net resource during the critical period.

The accused were also found to have diverted investor funds to acquire family assets, including vehicles and real estate, through a complex web of corporate structures involving foreign ownership.

From March 2011, amidst escalating litigation and impending financial obligations, the accused began filing for voluntary bankruptcy of Grupo entities.

In part due to their inability to repay the significant amounts owed to thousands of investors, the Ruiz-Mateos brothers employed several strategies to shield their assets from potential legal repercussions, including transferring ownership of their companies to others and appointing new, compliant administrators.

Notably, the Grupo’s Jerez office, referred to locally as the 'banquito de Jerez', had been capturing significant investor funds through high-interest loans, while guaranteeing repayments through corporate documents linked to companies within the Grupo, effectively hiding the firms' insolvency from investors.

The proceedings were protracted, with approximately six years elapsing from the case's transfer to the National Audience until the trial commenced.

The court acknowledged that the delays were not attributable to the defendants, citing extraordinary complexity and pandemic-induced slowdowns in judicial proceedings.

The court emphasized that such delays affected the right to a fair and timely resolution of the case.